David Cameron: the new...

[Saturn 5]

...arms dealer?

[Scribe]

Mankind has been trading in arms since the discovery of fire. So, in your so-far undeclared (but oh-so transparent) logic, David Cameron is as guilty as the rest of us.

And there's nothing wrong with selling weapons. Using them on innocent, vulnerable or unarmed (although that last example is debatable) civilians is morally wrong.

[Atticus]

5th Beatle?

[Ridgley]

Polished up Thatcher he is for turning.

[Annette Curtain]

Apologist ?

_{*thinks "I must have done something wrong"*}

http://www.financebehavior.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Heathrow-Delays_David-Cameron.jpg " Sorry "

_{( but really, we all know it's Nick Cleggs fault )*}

[Jeremy]

Saturn, you are certainly not the only one who's uncomfortable with the idea of our prime minister making trips to volatile regions to sell arms.

[????]

...Tony Blair...cuddling up to Middle Eastern despots, although he hasn't borrowed Berscoluni's Yacht/villa/helicopter etc for a freebie holiday yet

[mockney piers]

It did make me chuckle when TB was being interviewed saying what a brave man Mubarak is and how he should be allowed to continue in office.

Bless him, he really does dance to the tune doesn't he.

[????]

His (Tony Blair's) vanity, ego, shallowness and venality are unbelievable....I read someone saying that future historians will look at Tony Blair's 3 terms and scratch their heads thinking "How?"......many of us think it already

[Huguenot]

No, I don't think so. Historians are more likely to reflect on the vicious hypocrisy of a British public who want a certain lifestyle and indulgence, but cannot admit or accept the things that need to be done to maintain it.

The issue isn't Blair; the issue is about the vanity, ego, shallowness and venality of the British public.

Blair was a product of the British mentality. All this 'Bliar' stuff and heated public debate about deception is nothing but emetic retching of a pathalogical denier who can't look in the toilet after they've 'done something'.

[Annette Curtain]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, I don't think so. Historians are more likely

> to reflect on the vicious hypocrisy of a British

> public who want a certain lifestyle and

> indulgence, but cannot admit or accept the things

> that need to be done to maintain it.

>

> The issue isn't Blair; the issue is about the

> vanity, ego, shallowness and venality of the

> British public.

>

> Blair was a product of the British mentality. All

> this 'Bliar' stuff and heated public debate about

> deception is nothing but emetic retching of a

> pathalogical denier who can't look in the toilet

> after they've 'done something'.

" I agree with Huguenot " http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/feb2011/1/2/image-3-for-fall-of-a-dictator-gallery-445382984.jpg " and I do not fear my own poo "

[nashoi]

I'm confused, are you saying Gillian Mackeith should be Prime Minister?